Search This Blog

Justice needs to be seen to be done

The truth of the situation appears to be coming out of the woodwork. The police were asked for how many days they would like to have pre-charge and they said "up to 90". Blair then picked on this as a totem with which to batter the opposition.

The real problem is that it is the wrong question. The right question is what changes should be made to the criminal justice system be that legislation or guidelines to deal with maintaining both justice and security.

I have been working on this with people in Birmingham and went to a meeting with Andy Hayman of the Met. The basic point is that someone should be charged as soon as possible on an evidenced basis then remanded into custody.

Following discussion with senior police officers in London and Birmingham as well as lawyers it appears that the issues are as follows.

There is a question as to what the standard of proof for charging is. It is not thought by the police that there is an issue here.

There is a question as to the standard of proof for remanding into custody. There does not appear to be an issue here.

At the moment intercept evidence cannot be used. There could be changes made to home office guidance to facilitate this, but it would have to have a lower evidential value as there could not be a facility to chase the links to it.

A different caution is used pre-charge and post charge. The post charge one does not include the element which is "But it may harm your defence if you do not mention now something which you later rely on in court" Changing this should not be an issue. It appears to be an issue for the police.

The PACE code may need to be modified slightly to facilitate post-charge interview, which is already allowed.

There needs to be more forensic capacity.

None of the above areas for potential change cause substantial difficulties with civil liberties, but they do increase the number of tools in the police toolkit.

The error the government made was to ignore the need for justice to be seen to be done as well as done.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do. It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue. Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report, I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond. The group in their report said:

"Particularly
disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates
seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7
Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.

I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

In the 2015 General Election the Labour Candidate criticised John Hemming for having an external interest and made a pledge that she would be a "Full Time MP for Yardley and my only other job will be mom & carer ...". Here is a copy of that pledge:

Since that point she has been working on paid Television Programmes and has also written a book. John Hemming has made no secret of the fact that he chairs the board of the company he founded in 1983. This involves one meeting a month. When he was the MP for Yardley he was a full time MP and the Job of being MP for Yardley came first. The Labour candidate has reported 1,274 hours of work other than being an MP in the two years she has been elected and her income in the last year was over £131,000.

Ignoring the question as to how she reconciles that with her "pledge" the question is raised as to what extent her external activity conflicts with the role of Member of Parliament for Yardley. She is supposed to de…